SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the impugned order, the Waqf Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the application filed by the opposite party no.1 under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995 for non-compliance of due procedure for service of notice, but in the same breath granted the opposite party no.1 liberty to submit the application afresh as per law. It is submitted that such conclusions are contradictory to each other and, therefore, vitiate the impugned order. In this context, learned counsel cites a decision reported at 2017 (I) ICC 971 (SC) (V. Rajendran and another v. Annasamy Pandian (D) Thr. Lrs. Karthyayani Natchiar) . By placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel argues that, as per the proposition laid down in the same, a suit may be withdrawn under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure only upon filing of a formal application. Since all the rigours of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to a proceeding before the Waqf Tribunal, the Waqf Tribunal, it is submitted, acted without jurisdiction in granting liberty without such application being filed by the opposite party no.1.
(2.) Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the application under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995 was dismissed only on the ground of noncompliance of due procedure for service of notice. Since such ground was technical in nature, in any event, the opposite party no.1 would not be prevented from filing a new application under Section 54(3) of the said Act subsequently, upon compliance of due formalities, as contemplated in law. As such, the liberty granted by the Tribunal in the present case was rather superfluous and only intended to clarify the technical nature of the dismissal. The liberty granted in the present case was not one under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code and as such the rigour of filing a formal application did not apply thereto. Hence, the Tribunal did not act without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, in particular in granting liberty to submit the application afresh as per law, since the opposite party no.1 would not be debarred from filing a fresh application in any event upon due compliance of formalities as to service.
(3.) Accordingly, C.O. No.2349 of 2018 is dismissed without any order as to costs.;